Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Injury occurred during filming, potentially classifying the plaintiff as a “worker” under Ontario’s WSIA

• WSIA bars lawsuits for workplace injuries if the plaintiff is a covered worker

• Defendants delayed in seeking a ruling from WSIAT to confirm WSIA coverage

• Both parties shared responsibility for determining applicability of WSIA

• Costs were contested due to procedural delays and late-stage resolution

• Court reduced costs awarded to defendants to reflect shared procedural inefficiencies

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and incident
Adrienne Frantz, an actress based in California, sustained a facial injury in 2014 while filming The Perfect Girlfriend in Ottawa. The injury was allegedly caused by a canine actor used during production. In 2016, Frantz filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, claiming over $5 million in damages for the harm suffered.

Legal defence raised under workplace injury law
The defendants argued early in the proceedings that the claim was barred by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA), which prohibits workers covered by the insurance scheme from suing for workplace-related injuries. Despite this statutory defence being pleaded, the case proceeded through several years of litigation.

Tribunal ruling on worker status
In 2024, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) ruled that Frantz qualified as a “worker” under the WSIA during the time of the incident. As such, she was legally barred from pursuing a civil lawsuit for the injury. Following this decision, the action was dismissed by consent.

Dispute over legal costs
The remaining issue before the court concerned legal costs. The defendants sought over $104,000, asserting that the lawsuit should never have been filed and that Frantz ought to have known her claim was statute-barred. They emphasized the time and resources spent litigating a matter that was, in their view, clearly outside the court’s jurisdiction due to WSIA.

Frantz argued that a modest cost award was more appropriate. She pointed out that the defendants waited several years to formally seek a WSIAT ruling, even though they had raised the WSIA defence from the outset. This delay, she claimed, contributed significantly to the length and cost of the proceedings.

Court’s analysis and ruling
The court noted that both parties bore some responsibility for determining whether WSIA applied. While the defendants raised the issue early, they did not act on it in a timely manner by applying to the WSIAT until trial preparation was nearly complete. This procedural delay resulted in unnecessary costs.

The court decided to exclude costs related to the WSIAT hearing itself, as well as costs tied to a prior motion concerning security for costs. After adjusting for the shared responsibility and procedural inefficiencies, the court awarded the defendants $62,000 in costs—significantly less than they initially requested but still reflective of their partial success.

Key implications
This case reinforces that litigants and their counsel must act promptly when jurisdictional issues, such as WSIA coverage, are in dispute. Delayed applications to determine a party's status under WSIA can unnecessarily prolong litigation and inflate costs. The court may reduce cost awards where both sides contribute to procedural delays.